There is one thing you have to be VERY aware of it that if you take two photos of the same scene with two different focal lengths the wider angle lens always loses on detail because the image magnification is smaller. The only way to compare with a 24mm for example is to shoot a subject at say 15 ft away with the 15mm and then again but 24 feet away with the 24mm. That way the magnification is the same for the test and details can be compared directly in the negs. This assumes a fairly flat subject (2-d). Comprende? JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: More 15/3.5 samples - seeking opinions I think I will do one last test the next few days, along with FA*24/2 this time and see how they compared. I have always done tests the same way (tripod, self-timer, magnifier etc, just able the way I shoot) so there is nothing else I could do. Scanning is always done with Minolta Scan Elite so all scans are comparable. What surprises me is the lack of detail (almost none) with all close-up pictures. I think even FA*24/2 does much better than that, but we'll see. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan >In my honest opinion, unless you shoot with a similar lens like a 17mm >fish or 20mm under exact same conditions using a tripod there is no way >to tell. Don't rush to send it back if you don't have to. Compare to >some other fine lenses and post BOTH for us it see and compare. It >could be your technique or scanner or even camera, (try different >bodies). JCO _________________________________________________________________ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented MicrosoftR SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU =http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSNR Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
